Federal Power Act Amendments Act of 2003

I am pleased today to introduce the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2003, a bill intended to close loopholes in our immigration laws that have allowed war criminals and human rights abusers to enter and remain in this country. Senator Hatch has joined me in offering this bill, along with Senators Lieberman and Levin. In the other body, Representatives Mark Foley and Gary Ackerman today introduce identical legislation.

Our bill would update the charter of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, OSI, which for years has investigated and has sought justice in the cases of Nazi war criminals who have sought refuge on our shores. It is time to renew the OSI charter to take into account the new generations of war criminals who try to escape justice by living among us.

This bill closely mirrors legislation I had offered that was reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, and which passed the Senate during the 106th Congress. I hope and expect that, with the help of Senator Hatch and others, this bill will become law during this Congress.

As we introduce this bill, our armed forces are fighting to replace an Iraqi regime that has been marked by its utter disregard for the human rights of its people. We must not fight this war on the one hand, and let human rights abusers from around the world enter our Nation with impunity on the other.

When they learn it is so, the American people are appalled to learn that our country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power in foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent civilians. A report issued last year by Amnesty International claims that nearly 150 alleged human rights abusers have been identified living here and warns that this number may be as high as 1,000. Meanwhile, an article in the New York Review of Books stated that ``hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign nationals who have been plausibly accused of the most heinous human rights crimes, including torture and assassination, either have lived or still live freely in the U.S.'' [William Schulz, ``The Torturers Among Us,'' New York Review, p. 22, April 25, 2002.]

I introduced a similar version of this bill on May 10, 2001, and the Judiciary Committee reported the bill with a Leahy-Hatch managers' amendment on April 18, 2002. Unfortunately, the bill was subject to an anonymous hold on the Senate floor.

I introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress and was pleased when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. The legislation passed the Senate on November 5, 1999, as part of S. 1754, the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe Havens to International and War Criminals Act,'' but unfortunately it was not acted on by the House before the end of the 106th Congress. Nevertheless, Representatives Foley and Ackerman have provided consistent leadership in moving this legislation in the House, by introducing the measure in the l06th Congress as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058, in the 107th Congress, as H.R. 1449, and again today.

The problem of human rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in this country is real, and requires an effective response with the legal and enforcement changes proposed in this legislation.

For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American court that

Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in the military dictatorship that ruled Ethiopia in the 1970s, engaged in numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses against them when they lived in that country. Negewo oversaw and participated in the torture of opposition political figures in Ethiopia, and then moved to the United States only to work at the same Atlanta hotel as one of his own victims. The court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and included whipping a naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1.5 million to the plaintiffs was subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. [See Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996).] Yet during the pendency of his appeal of the civil verdict, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted Negewo citizenship.

This situation is an affront both to the foreign victims of torture who fled here to escape their persecutors, and to the American victims of such torture and their families. As Professor William Aceves of California Western School of Law has noted, this case reveals ``a glaring and troubling limitation in current immigration law and practice. This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed gross human rights violations have also gained entry into the United States and been granted immigration relief.'' [20 Mich. J. Int'l.L. at 657.]

Indeed, another case actually involves American victims. In 1980, four American churchwomen were raped and murdered by the Salvadoran National Guard. Two former Salvadoran government officials who allegedly covered up the murders currently reside in Florida.

Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock that door to human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the United States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we should promptly show them the door out.

We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too long after World War II to focus prosecutorial resources and attention on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false pretenses, or worse, with the collusion of American intelligence agencies. Thousands of declassified CIA documents were made public last year, as a result of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was proud to help enact in 1998. These documents made clear the extent to which the United States relied upon and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, noted at the time, ``These files demonstrate that the real winners of the Cold War were Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake for other aliens who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to the United States. We need to focus the attention of our law enforcement investigators to prosecute and deport those who have committed atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe harbor in the United States.

When I first introduced this bill, the Rutland Daily Herald in Vermont editorialized that:

For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything,

U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough

to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and

then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip

across the border to find a home in America. (October 31,

1999)

The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws. One Clinton Administration witness testified in February 2000 that:

The Department of Justice supports efforts to enhance our

ability to remove individuals who have committed acts of

torture abroad. The department also recognizes, however, that

our current immigration laws do not provide strong enough

bars for human rights abusers. . . . Right now, only three

types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from

entering or remaining in the United States. The types of

prohibited conduct include: (1) genocide; (2) particularly

severe violations of religious freedom; and (3) Nazi

persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly

defined. [Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien

Deportation Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and

Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d

Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E. Costello,

Associate Deputy Attorney General).]

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would provide a stronger bar to human rights abusers and close loopholes in our current laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) currently provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii) aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom, are both inadmissable to the United States and removable. [See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D).] This bill would expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to: (1) add new bars for aliens who have engaged in acts, outside the United States, of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing,'' and (2) remove limitations on the current bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom.''

The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, which prohibits:

an act committed by a person acting under the color of law

specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental

pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to

lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or

physical control.'' [18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1).]

``Severe mental pain or suffering'' is further defined to mean:

prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (A) the

intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe

physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or

application, or threatened administration or application, of

mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to

disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the

threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another

person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical

pain or suffering, or the administration or application of

mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to

disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. [18 U.S.C.

Sec. 2340(2).]

The Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for ``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, this law establishes civil liability for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . . . subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which is defined to mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. This term, however, does not include any such killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a foreign nation.''

The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(ii).] For clarity and consistency, the bill would substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden the reach of the provision to apply not only to those who ``engaged in genocide,'' as in current law, but also to cover any alien who has ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in genocide. This broader scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more appropriate range of levels of complicity.

Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), limits its application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the individual's

spouse and children, if any. This bill would delete the reference to prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period since this limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the United States to promote religious freedom throughout the world. As Professor Aceves has written:

This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month

time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A

perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to

seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the

commission of these acts. [William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich.

J. Int'l L., at 683.]

In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for the spouse or children of a violator of religious freedom. This is a serious sanction that should not apply to individuals because of familial relationships that are beyond their control. The purpose of these amendments is to make those who have participated in atrocities accountable for their actions. That purpose is not served by holding the family members of such individuals accountable for the offensive conduct over which they had no control.

Under current law, most aliens who are inadmissible may receive a waiver under section 212(d)(3) of the INA to enter the nation as a nonimmigrant, where the Secretary of State recommends it and the Attorney General approves. Participants in Nazi persecutions or genocide, however, are not eligible for such a waiver. Our bill retains that provision. It does not, however, ban waivers for those who commit acts of torture or extrajudicial killings. I would hope that such waivers are used sparingly and only under the most compelling of circumstances.

Of course, changing the law to address the problem of human rights abusers seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part of the solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert noted:

[s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to

implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does

not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice

with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and

prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights

atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency

for this function can be seen in the experiences of the

Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at

689.

Our country has long provided the template and moral leadership for dealing with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized unit, OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute and remove Nazi war criminals who had slipped into the United States among their victims under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective enforcement. Since OSI was created in 1979, more than 60 Nazi persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, almost 50 such individuals have been removed from the United States, and more than 150 have been denied entry.

OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when Attorney General Civiletti, by a 1979 Attorney General order, established OSI within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, that office was directed to conduct all ``investigative and litigation activities involving individuals, who prior to and during World War II, under the supervision of or in association with the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other affiliated governments, are alleged to have ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion.'' (Attorney Gen. Order No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney General Order.

I believe it is time to reward the tremendous work that OSI has done by expanding its mission to ensure effective enforcement against war criminals of all stripes.

Little is being done about the new generation of international human rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are costly. As any prosecutor knows instinctively, such delays make documentary and testimonial evidence more difficult to obtain. Stale cases are the hardest to make. We should not repeat the mistake of waiting decades before tracking down war criminals and human rights abusers who have settled in this country. War criminals should find no sanctuary in loopholes in our current immigration policies and enforcement, and should never come to believe that they will find safe harbor in the United States.

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of Special Investigations (OSI) within the Department of Justice with authorization to denaturalize any alien who has participated in Nazi persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. Not only would the bill provide statutory authorization for OSI, it would also expand its jurisdiction to deal with any alien who participated in torture, extrajudicial killing and genocide abroad not just Nazis.

The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary for effective prosecutions of these cases and would best be accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have more diverse missions.

These are the sound policy and practical reasons that experts in this area recommend that the United States ``establish an office in the Justice Department similar to the one that has tracked Nazi war criminals, with an exclusive mandate to carry out the task of investigation [of suspected human rights abusers].'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 24.]

I appreciate that this part of the legislation has in the past proven controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of the Department to address the new responsibilities proposed in this bill. Professor Aceves, who has studied these matters extensively, has concluded that the OSI's ``methodology for pursuing Nazi war criminals can be applied with equal rigor to other perpetrators of human rights violations. As the number of Nazi war criminals inevitably declines, the OSI can begin to enforce U.S. immigration laws against perpetrators of genocide and other gross violations of human rights.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l. 657.

Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from the OSI's current mission instead, additional resources are authorized in the bill to cover the costs of the Office's expanded duties.

Significantly, the bill further directs the Attorney General, in determining what action to take against a human rights abuser seeking entry into or found within the United States, to consider whether a prosecution should be brought under U.S. law or whether the alien should be deported to a country willing to undertake such a prosecution. Despite ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 1994 and adopting a new law making torture anywhere in the world a crime, federal law enforcement has not used this authority. In fact, one recent observer noted that ``the U.S. has never prosecuted a suspected torturer; nor has it ever extradited one under the Convention Against Torture, although it has surrendered one person to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 23 - 24.]

As one human rights expert has noted:

``The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is

discovered that serious human rights abusers have found their

way into the United States may lead well-meaning people to

call for their immediate expulsion. Such individuals

certainly should not be enjoying the good life America has to

offer. But when we ask the question `where should they be?'

the answer is clear: they should be in the dock. That is the

essence of accountability, and it should be the central goal

of any scheme to penalize human rights abusers.'' [Hearing on

H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability

Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the

House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept.

28, 2000 (Statement of Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington

Office, Lawyers Committee For Human Rights).]

Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House on implementation of the new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of matters to the OSI, any

revisions made to immigration forms to reflect amendments made by the bill, and the procedures developed, with adequate due process protection, to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether an alien is deemed inadmissible under the bill.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate again to give their approval to this bill, and for the House to help us finally make it law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Federal Power Act Amendment of 2003.'' This bill is intended to ensure for the future the two things that matter most to all electricity customers: affordable electricity and reliable electricity.

Electricity users, my constituents and your constituents, wake up in the morning, flip a switch and expect their lights to turn on. They also expect that each month when their electricity bill arrives in the mail that they'll pay a reasonable price for that service. Customers don't care where the electrons come from or what new scheme the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has in mind for the electricity industry or really much of anything else. And frankly, as a representative of nearly four and a half million people in my home State of Louisiana, affordable and reliable electricity are my primary concerns when it comes to electricity policy, and that is the purpose for which I offer legislation today.

Electricity prices in Louisiana, and throughout the Southeast for that matter, are some of the lowest in the nation. According to the North American Electric Reliability Council's most recent reliability assessment report, the Southeast region is expected to enjoy, at least for the near term, ``adequate delivery capacity to support forecast demand and energy requirements under normal and contingency conditions.'' In other words, electricity customers in the Southeast should expect to continue to enjoy reliable electric service over the short run. My concern, however, is about the future of retail electricity service in my State.

There are several specific areas of concern that I have and that I attempt to address in the legislation being offered today.

First, the current balance between State and Federal jurisdiction, which has worked exceedingly well in my home State to provide low-cost and reliable electric service, is in jeopardy. Retail transactions, regulated by State public utility commissions, have historically comprised 90 percent of most utilities' transactions and continue to do so in a majority of States that have not restructured their electricity markets. In fact, there is not a single State in the Southeast with the exception of Virginia that has authorized retail competition. Yet, customers in our region of the country enjoy some of the lowest priced electricity service.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC, however, has issued a proposed rule that would strip States of much of their current jurisdiction over retail electric service, including the transmission component of bundled retail sales. In so doing, FERC would dramatically impair the ability of States to use retail ratemaking to attain local policy goals and to continue to ensure low costs for retail customers. It would also prohibit States from ensuring that retail customers are given a priority for electricity service. As a result, in the event that supplies are tight, retail customers could lose the right to priority service.

FERC's proposed plan is a one-size-fits-all scheme on the entire country based on a model that closely resembles the one in place in New Jersey, much of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This model may work well in the Northeast, but it has never been tested or proven viable in any other part of the country. In fact, in a study performed by the consulting firm, Charles River Associates, it was concluded that there is ``considerable uncertainty as to whether [the FERC's proposed plan] would provide greater benefits to the southeast than the implementation costs.'' In Louisiana, and I'm sure in many other States throughout the Southeast and across the country, customers are happy with their electric service. So I ask, what's wrong with the current jurisdictional division between the State and Federal government? If a State or region wants to adopt a new approach, they should be free to do so. But we should not allow a Federal agency to make fundamental policy decisions that are best left to State officials who are accountable to local interests. We know what happened out West when California regulators attempted to institute a sweeping, new plan for its electricity markets. I hope to avoid importing those problems into Louisiana.

To address this jurisdictional concern, Section 2 of my bill would clarify the Federal-State arrangement under the Federal Power Act by explicitly stating that States shall have jurisdiction over the retail sale of electric energy, including all component parts of a bundled retail sale. In addition, Section 7 would enable States to continue to allow utilities to reserve transmission capacity for retail customers. This is current law and the current practice in a large number of States, including States with some of the lowest average retail rates and the best history of reliability. As contemplated by Congress when the Federal Power Act was enacted, FERC will retain jurisdiction over the wholesale sales of electric energy and States will retain jurisdiction over retail.

My second concern for retail customers is the potential for increased rates caused by the costs of accommodating the ``merchant generation'' that, over the past several years, have been seeking to connect to the electric grid in the Southeast. Though new generation is important to wholesale competition, it is a strain on the transmission system. To accommodate the new generation, new transmission facilities and upgrades to existing facilities are needed. However, customers in Louisiana would be forced to pay for the facilities needed to accommodate the merchant generators, even though most of their customers are out-of-region customers. State regulatory commissioners, understandably, are reluctant to pass transmission construction and upgrade costs off to local customers who are not benefitting from the electricity. Meanwhile energy dependent regions of the country are denied cheap and reliable electricity.

A reason they choose to site in Louisiana is because we are blessed with abundant reserves of natural gas--the currently favored fuel source for electric generation. Merchant generators are siting their facilities to gain access to these resources as cheaply as possible, and then are delivering electricity to regions where they can sell electricity at a higher cost. If enough transmission is built to export just a portion of the new generation that is planned to come on-line in Louisiana--10,000 megawatts--the estimated cost would impose a retail rate increase of 5 to 11 percent.

Surely, there must be a more equitable way to allocate cost while simultaneously enhancing our transmission capacity. It is not fair to expect customers in energy generating States to keep paying for transmission expansion when this increased transmission is primarily being developed for out-of-region use. In Sections 3 and 4 of this bill, I have attempted to provide a more equitable system. Section 3 would allow for ``voluntary participant-funding'' in which a regional transmission organization may choose to establish a system in which market participants pay for expansions to the transmission network in return for the transmission rights created by the expansion investment. This approach gives proper economic incentives for new generator location and transmission expansion decisions.

Similarly, Section 4 of my bill would require the FERC to initiate a proceeding to establish rules for interconnecting new generation to transmission facilities. As in Section 3, any costs made necessary by the interconnecting generator would be funded by the generator, or cost-causer, in return for a right to use such facilities funded by the investment.

The third problem that I see is the lack of new investment in transmission facilities. FERC noted in its Electric Transmission Constraint study that transmission congestion costs retail

customers across the country millions of dollars every year. Over the past 10 years, demand for electricity has increased by 17 percent while transmission investment during the same period has continuously declined about 45 percent.

What is even more troubling is that current demand for electricity is projected to increase by 25 percent over the next 10 years with only a modest increase in transmission capacity. In the short term, this lack of transmission investment and the corresponding lack of transmission capacity, adversely affects the ability of retail customers to realize the benefits of wholesale competition. Over the long term, and if this trend continues, the reliability of the bulk power system could be compromised. In the summer of 2000, transmission constraints limited the ability to sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during a period of peak demand, causing higher costs for customers. In the summer of 2001 during the California electricity crisis, transmission constraints along the Path 15 transmission route were a significant cause of the blackouts experienced by customers in the northern parts of that State.

To help spur this needed investment in the transmission sector, Section 5 of the legislation would provide further guidance to FERC in establishing transmission rates in two ways. First, Section 5 would amend Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to clarify that the cost causer is responsible for paying the costs of new transmission investment and that all users of the transmission facilities are required to pay an equitable share of the costs such facilities. These provisions will help ensure that users of the transmission system have proper economic price signals and encourage investment where it is needed most. Second, Section 5 would add a new section to the Federal Power Act, Section 215, that would require the FERC to initiate a rulemaking to establish transmission pricing policies and standards to promote investment in transmission facilities. Although the Commission may have sufficient authority under current law to initiate such policies, our Nation's transmission system has been neglected too long and I believe that the FERC could benefit from more specific guidance from Congress.

Finally, customers are not realizing all of the potential benefits of wholesale electricity markets because of its balkanization. The likely result is higher electricity prices. In different parts of the country, electric utilities are in various stages of joining together to form large regional markets, or in the terms used by FERC--regional transmission organizations. In addition, public power entities, including municipal utilities, cooperatives, and federal and State power marketing associations have been willing or resisting, to varying degrees, to contribute to the efforts to establish regional markets. Exacerbating this problem is the underlying fact that FERC does not have the same jurisdiction over public power utilities as it does over electric utilities.

Properly functioning regional markets for electricity can bring about significant benefits to customers in all parts of the country. More competitive wholesale generation, for example, will allow retail sellers greater opportunities to purchase generation from independent power producers. Improperly functioning markets, or one-size-fits all proposals that do not take into consideration regional differences, can be devastating. Current law and policy at FERC has been insufficient in achieving the proper balance between the need for robust regional markets, the reality of regional differences and the legitimate efforts of utilities.

Therefore, in Section 6 of the bill, the FERC would be required to convene regional discussions with State regulatory commissions to consider the development and progress of regional transmission organizations. It would further provide for specific topics of discussion between FERC and the States including the need for regional organizations, the planning process for facilities, the protection of retail customers, and the establishment of proper price signals to ensure the efficient expansion of the transmission grid. Section 6 would also help reduce the balkanization of the electric grid by authorizing the federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration to join regional transmission organizations. Also, in an attempt to help expand wholesale markets, Section 8 would provide for FERC to require that public power entities provide a limited form of access to their transmission facilities. This provision would give wholesale generators increased access to markets and ensure that competitors pay only the fair and reasonable price to use the transmission grid owned by public power.

In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and consider its affect on retail electricity customers in their States. Affordable and reliable electricity should be our objective for all customers, in all parts of the country.

Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Federal Power Act Amendment of 2003.'' This bill is intended to ensure for the future the two things that matter most to all electricity customers: affordable electricity and reliable electricity.

Electricity users, my constituents and your constituents, wake up in the morning, flip a switch and expect their lights to turn on. They also expect that each month when their electricity bill arrives in the mail that they'll pay a reasonable price for that service. Customers don't care where the electrons come from or what new scheme the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has in mind for the electricity industry or really much of anything else. And frankly, as a representative of nearly four and a half million people in my home State of Louisiana, affordable and reliable electricity are my primary concerns when it comes to electricity policy, and that is the purpose for which I offer legislation today.

Electricity prices in Louisiana, and throughout the Southeast for that matter, are some of the lowest in the nation. According to the North American Electric Reliability Council's most recent reliability assessment report, the Southeast region is expected to enjoy, at least for the near term, ``adequate delivery capacity to support forecast demand and energy requirements under normal and contingency conditions.'' In other words, electricity customers in the Southeast should expect to continue to enjoy reliable electric service over the short run. My concern, however, is about the future of retail electricity service in my State.

There are several specific areas of concern that I have and that I attempt to address in the legislation being offered today.

First, the current balance between State and Federal jurisdiction, which has worked exceedingly well in my home State to provide low-cost and reliable electric service, is in jeopardy. Retail transactions, regulated by State public utility commissions, have historically comprised 90 percent of most utilities' transactions and continue to do so in a majority of States that have not restructured their electricity markets. In fact, there is not a single State in the Southeast with the exception of Virginia that has authorized retail competition. Yet, customers in our region of the country enjoy some of the lowest priced electricity service.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC, however, has issued a proposed rule that would strip States of much of their current jurisdiction over retail electric service, including the transmission component of bundled retail sales. In so doing, FERC would dramatically impair the ability of States to use retail ratemaking to attain local policy goals and to continue to ensure low costs for retail customers. It would also prohibit States from ensuring that retail customers are given a priority for electricity service. As a result, in the event that supplies are tight, retail customers could lose the right to priority service.

FERC's proposed plan is a one-size-fits-all scheme on the entire country based on a model that closely resembles the one in place in New Jersey, much of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This model may work well in the Northeast, but it has never been tested or proven viable in any other part of the country. In fact, in a study performed by the consulting firm, Charles River Associates, it was concluded that there is ``considerable uncertainty as to whether [the FERC's proposed plan] would provide greater benefits to the southeast than the implementation costs.'' In Louisiana, and I'm sure in many other States throughout the Southeast and across the country, customers are happy with their electric service. So I ask, what's wrong with the current jurisdictional division between the State and Federal government? If a State or region wants to adopt a new approach, they should be free to do so. But we should not allow a Federal agency to make fundamental policy decisions that are best left to State officials who are accountable to local interests. We know what happened out West when California regulators attempted to institute a sweeping, new plan for its electricity markets. I hope to avoid importing those problems into Louisiana.

To address this jurisdictional concern, Section 2 of my bill would clarify the Federal-State arrangement under the Federal Power Act by explicitly stating that States shall have jurisdiction over the retail sale of electric energy, including all component parts of a bundled retail sale. In addition, Section 7 would enable States to continue to allow utilities to reserve transmission capacity for retail customers. This is current law and the current practice in a large number of States, including States with some of the lowest average retail rates and the best history of reliability. As contemplated by Congress when the Federal Power Act was enacted, FERC will retain jurisdiction over the wholesale sales of electric energy and States will retain jurisdiction over retail.

My second concern for retail customers is the potential for increased rates caused by the costs of accommodating the ``merchant generation'' that, over the past several years, have been seeking to connect to the electric grid in the Southeast. Though new generation is important to wholesale competition, it is a strain on the transmission system. To accommodate the new generation, new transmission facilities and upgrades to existing facilities are needed. However, customers in Louisiana would be forced to pay for the facilities needed to accommodate the merchant generators, even though most of their customers are out-of-region customers. State regulatory commissioners, understandably, are reluctant to pass transmission construction and upgrade costs off to local customers who are not benefitting from the electricity. Meanwhile energy dependent regions of the country are denied cheap and reliable electricity.

A reason they choose to site in Louisiana is because we are blessed with abundant reserves of natural gas--the currently favored fuel source for electric generation. Merchant generators are siting their facilities to gain access to these resources as cheaply as possible, and then are delivering electricity to regions where they can sell electricity at a higher cost. If enough transmission is built to export just a portion of the new generation that is planned to come on-line in Louisiana--10,000 megawatts--the estimated cost would impose a retail rate increase of 5 to 11 percent.

Surely, there must be a more equitable way to allocate cost while simultaneously enhancing our transmission capacity. It is not fair to expect customers in energy generating States to keep paying for transmission expansion when this increased transmission is primarily being developed for out-of-region use. In Sections 3 and 4 of this bill, I have attempted to provide a more equitable system. Section 3 would allow for ``voluntary participant-funding'' in which a regional transmission organization may choose to establish a system in which market participants pay for expansions to the transmission network in return for the transmission rights created by the expansion investment. This approach gives proper economic incentives for new generator location and transmission expansion decisions.

Similarly, Section 4 of my bill would require the FERC to initiate a proceeding to establish rules for interconnecting new generation to transmission facilities. As in Section 3, any costs made necessary by the interconnecting generator would be funded by the generator, or cost-causer, in return for a right to use such facilities funded by the investment.

The third problem that I see is the lack of new investment in transmission facilities. FERC noted in its Electric Transmission Constraint study that transmission congestion costs retail

customers across the country millions of dollars every year. Over the past 10 years, demand for electricity has increased by 17 percent while transmission investment during the same period has continuously declined about 45 percent.

What is even more troubling is that current demand for electricity is projected to increase by 25 percent over the next 10 years with only a modest increase in transmission capacity. In the short term, this lack of transmission investment and the corresponding lack of transmission capacity, adversely affects the ability of retail customers to realize the benefits of wholesale competition. Over the long term, and if this trend continues, the reliability of the bulk power system could be compromised. In the summer of 2000, transmission constraints limited the ability to sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during a period of peak demand, causing higher costs for customers. In the summer of 2001 during the California electricity crisis, transmission constraints along the Path 15 transmission route were a significant cause of the blackouts experienced by customers in the northern parts of that State.

To help spur this needed investment in the transmission sector, Section 5 of the legislation would provide further guidance to FERC in establishing transmission rates in two ways. First, Section 5 would amend Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to clarify that the cost causer is responsible for paying the costs of new transmission investment and that all users of the transmission facilities are required to pay an equitable share of the costs such facilities. These provisions will help ensure that users of the transmission system have proper economic price signals and encourage investment where it is needed most. Second, Section 5 would add a new section to the Federal Power Act, Section 215, that would require the FERC to initiate a rulemaking to establish transmission pricing policies and standards to promote investment in transmission facilities. Although the Commission may have sufficient authority under current law to initiate such policies, our Nation's transmission system has been neglected too long and I believe that the FERC could benefit from more specific guidance from Congress.

Finally, customers are not realizing all of the potential benefits of wholesale electricity markets because of its balkanization. The likely result is higher electricity prices. In different parts of the country, electric utilities are in various stages of joining together to form large regional markets, or in the terms used by FERC--regional transmission organizations. In addition, public power entities, including municipal utilities, cooperatives, and federal and State power marketing associations have been willing or resisting, to varying degrees, to contribute to the efforts to establish regional markets. Exacerbating this problem is the underlying fact that FERC does not have the same jurisdiction over public power utilities as it does over electric utilities.

Properly functioning regional markets for electricity can bring about significant benefits to customers in all parts of the country. More competitive wholesale generation, for example, will allow retail sellers greater opportunities to purchase generation from independent power producers. Improperly functioning markets, or one-size-fits all proposals that do not take into consideration regional differences, can be devastating. Current law and policy at FERC has been insufficient in achieving the proper balance between the need for robust regional markets, the reality of regional differences and the legitimate efforts of utilities.

Therefore, in Section 6 of the bill, the FERC would be required to convene regional discussions with State regulatory commissions to consider the development and progress of regional transmission organizations. It would further provide for specific topics of discussion between FERC and the States including the need for regional organizations, the planning process for facilities, the protection of retail customers, and the establishment of proper price signals to ensure the efficient expansion of the transmission grid. Section 6 would also help reduce the balkanization of the electric grid by authorizing the federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration to join regional transmission organizations. Also, in an attempt to help expand wholesale markets, Section 8 would provide for FERC to require that public power entities provide a limited form of access to their transmission facilities. This provision would give wholesale generators increased access to markets and ensure that competitors pay only the fair and reasonable price to use the transmission grid owned by public power.

In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and consider its affect on retail electricity customers in their States. Affordable and reliable electricity should be our objective for all customers, in all parts of the country.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to enhance the safety of large passenger vans, which are highly susceptible to rollovers and have been associated with more than 500 fatalities since 1990.

It was under the most tragic circumstances that this issue came to my State's attention last year. On September 12th, 2002, 14 migrant forestry workers were killed when their 15-passenger van rolled off a bridge over the Allagash Wilderness Waterway in northern Maine. The sole survivor of this catastrophe escaped when he kicked out the rear window of the sinking van in what was the single worst motor vehicle accident in Maine's history.

I quickly learned that this was the latest in a long line of deadly crashes involving the popular vans, which were initially designed to carry cargo rather than passengers and are highly prone to rollovers, especially when fully loaded. There are more than 500,000 of these vans on the road today, and they are frequently used for a wide variety of purposes, from van pools and church outings, to transportation to and from airports, to transporting college athletics teams or workers.

In response to the spate of fatal accidents involving the vans in the past few years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, conducted a study in 2001 to analyze the vans' propensity to rollover. In May 2001, after concluding the study, NHTSA issued a national warning to users of such vehicles that they have an increased risk of rollovers under certain conditions. They issued a similar warning in April 2002. The results of the NHTSA study are dramatic, finding that rollover risks rise sharply as the number of van occupants increases. With 10 or more occupants, the rollover rate is nearly three times the rate of vans that are lightly loaded. And with more than 15 occupants, the risk of a rollover is almost six times greater than if the van only has five occupants.

Following up on NHTSA's work, and as the deadly march of van accidents continued, last year both the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, and the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen issued a number of safety recommendations on the issue. Given the increasing use of 15-passenger vans in transporting larger groups, I believe it is time to move beyond warnings and for Congress to take action to address the safety of these vans.

The bill I am introducing today would require NHTSA to include 15- passenger vans in their dynamic rollover testing program. While NHTSA is currently developing this program, as mandated by The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation, TREAD, Act of 2000, it does not include 15-passenger vans. Given the demonstrated propensity of these vans to roll, and the deadly effects of a rollover in fully loaded passenger vans, it is vital that we subject them to the same safety standards that NHTSA plans to apply to passenger cars and sport utility vehicles, SUVs.

My bill would also require NHTSA to include 15-passenger vans in their New Car Assessment Program, NCAP, rollover resistance ratings, and to test them at various load conditions. The

NCAP, which provides consumers with a measure of the relative safety potential of vehicles in frontal crashes, was expanded recently to include the rollover risk of passenger cars and light trucks. However, the expansion does not extend to vehicles that carry more than 10 passengers. I believe that before churches or colleges or employers purchase one of these vans, they should have access to NCAP information about their rollover propensity relative to other vehicles.

In addition, the bill requires NHTSA to work with van manufacturers to evaluate and test the potential of technological systems to help drivers in maintaining control of the vans. Specifically, NHTSA would look at electronic stability control, ESC, systems that some high-end SUVs are already equipped with and rear-view mirror-based rollover warning systems. ESC systems are computer-controlled systems that attempt to stabilize the vehicle by monitoring a vehicle's movement and the direction the driver is steering. I am also aware of rollover warning systems under development, attachable to the rear-view mirror, that will warn a driver if his speed or driving maneuvers risk a rollover. In short, technology can help us to greatly reduce the tendency of these vans to roll, and in the process save lives.

These vans are also in widespread use for commercial purposes like airport shuttles and vanpools. Therefore, my legislation would require the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, to finish their rulemaking on the application of federal motor carrier safety regulations to 15 passenger vans used for commercial purposes. Both the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, and the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 directed FMCSA to promulgate regulations on the commercial use of the vans. While they initiated rulemaking in 1999, to date, FMCSA applies no operating regulations whatsoever to these vans.

Finally, this bill addresses the use of 15-passenger vans to transport schoolchildren. Under current law, schools are prohibited from purchasing these vans new to transport schoolchildren because they do not meet the same safety standards as schoolbuses do. However, counter-intuitively, Federal law is silent about the purchase of used vans, or the use of rental vans.

My bill addresses this loophole by incorporating language introduced during the 107th Congress by Representative Mark Udall of Colorado to extend the ban from the sale of vans to leasing, renting and buying of vans. This is intended to make the buyers accountable as well as the seller. At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing, I asked NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey Runge about this disparity in current law, and he agreed that when we're talking about transporting schoolchildren, what's good for new vans should be good for used and rented vans.

Also, to make it worth NHTSA's while to pursue violators, my bill would raise the maximum penalty for violations of the prohibition on the sale or rental of these vans to schools from $5,000 to $25,000.

I truly believe that this legislation will cut down on the number of fatal accidents involving 15-passenger vans by subjecting them to federal rollover standards, providing consumers with adequate safety information and making sure that our schoolchildren are driven to school in safe vehicles. I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to The Right Honorable Tony Charles Lynton Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service.

For more than two centuries, Congress has expressed public gratitude on behalf of the Nation for the notable contributions of individuals and of groups through the Congressional Gold Medal. Congress created this honor as its highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievement and contributions.

Originally bestowed upon military leaders, the first Congressional Gold Medal was awarded to George Washington by the Continental Congress on March 25, 1776, for his heroic service in the Revolutionary War. In the two centuries since the medal was first awarded, Congressional Gold Medal recipients have transcended nationality, country and politics. In addition to modern military leaders including General Douglas MacArthur and General Colin Powell, this award has recognized the extraordinary character and efforts of such world leaders as Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, another British wartime leader.

In the year and a half since September 11, 2001, and particularly over the course of recent weeks, Prime Minister Blair has exhibited extraordinary courage in the war against terror. With steadfast and unwavering resolve, he has held firm to his principles without regard to, indeed in spite of, the shifting political winds. Again and again, he has been called on to demonstrate his recognition that tyrannical dictators cannot be allowed to terrorize their citizens and neighbors, or the world community.

In the process, Prime Minister Blair has proven to be one of the strongest and most distinguished allies of the United States in our efforts to rid the world of terrorists, and to bring to justice the corrupt regimes that support them. Great Britain has long been a trusted ally of our Nation; however,

Prime Minister Blair has gone beyond friendship to demonstrate true leadership for his nation and for Europe.

In the 18th century, English philosopher Edmund Burke once said, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' How poignant and how true that remains today.

It is clear that Prime Minister Blair understands the truth in these words, and that true leaders often hold lonely positions when they forgo the political expedient to stand for what is right.

Last week, a British newspaper editorialized about Prime Minister Blair's lonely struggle. ``Mr. Blair has not shrunk from debate,'' said The Independent, a newspaper that has frequently and loudly criticized the Prime Minister in the past. ``He has taken the argument to all quarters of his restive party. He has allowed the Commons its say. And despite all the doubts about this war, Mr. Blair has shown himself in the past few days to be at once the most formidable politician in the country and the right national leader for these deeply uncertain times.''

These are uncertain, but defining, times. America suffers with Great Britain during the struggles in Iraq. And we mourn together the loss of the brave individuals who dedicate their lives to defending freedom. The courage of the coalition forces in the theater, their skill and bravery on the front lines, the dedication and patriotism of their families at home, all extends back to their leaders.

Prime Minister Blair has had the vision to see that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man who continues to pose a threat to the region's stability, to his own people, and to the world through his sponsorship of terror.

The liberation of Iraq will be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to the people of Iraq. We will work together to supply humanitarian relief and strive for the long-term recovery of Iraq's economy.

In this effort to bring freedom to a nation of people who have thirsted for relief from terror, Prime Minister Blair has taken a courageous and principled stand before the world. The simple lesson learned, the lesson Prime Minister Blair personifies, is that evil must be checked.

History will be a kind judge of Tony Blair, for great leaders are remembered well when they stand by their convictions, especially when those stands are tested in the face of adversity, during times of conflict and strife. In such times of testing, we take the measure of our leaders, our institutions, and ourselves.

Prime Minister Blair's character has proven strong and he deserves nothing less than our highest accolades.

That is why I am proud and honored today to introduce legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Prime Minister Blair, and to thank him, on the floor on this Chamber, for his steadfast stand against evil.

I encourage my colleagues to recognize Prime Minister Blair for the courage of his convictions by joining in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.